The percentage of soldiers who are unavailable for combat has risen sharply during the past three years from 11% of each brigade in 2007 to 16% this year, Army records show.
Repeated deployments and health problems have driven much of the increase in soldiers listed as non-deployable, said Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the Army vice chief of staff. A brigade has about 3,500 soldiers.
“These are folks who had a knee problem after the first (combat) rotation,” he said, “and then, finally, after the third one of humping a rucksack in Afghanistan at 10,000 feet, the doc says, ‘I don’t care if you’re going to deploy again, the fact of the matter is you’re going to (stay back until you) get your knee fixed.’ ”
Nearly 70% of the Army’s current roster of 460,000 enlisted soldiers have been to war ”” half of them once, nearly a third of them twice, 13% with three combat tours and 4% deployed four times.
This is a result of having a military lead by folks concentrating on modernizing the military for the [i]next[/i] conflict rather than focusing on winning the two wars we were hip deep in already! In open congressional testimoney, the Chair of the Joint Chiefs was more concerned that the war in Iraq would end before they could transform to the modern army (because funding is harder to get in peacetime) than he was IN WINNING THE WAR!!! This at a time when our troops were forced to scrounge the junkyards of Iraq for scrap metal to make improvise armor for the Humvees they were sent to war in!!! This at a time when urgently needed body armor was scarce for troops in the war fight!!! This after over 5 years of war!!! FM-1 MADE NO MENTION OF VICTORY IN THE CURRENT WARS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN…but was full of how the Army was going to become lighter and more flexible in the post Cold War environment!!! Where was the proper military focus on WINNING THE WAR(s)?!?
SecDef Gates, when he took over from Rumsfeld, finally seemed to bring some sanity to the situation and condemnt “next war itis”. Petreus was brought in and we had the surge in Iraq that worked.
But the loss of time, multiple deployments, and operational tempo have taken a toll on the troops. Obama said we would be out of Iraq within 6 months of assuming office. We all see how well that worked out, don’t we. He neglected Afghanistan for a year, allowing the enemy to grow stronger, and vasillated far too long in making any decisions there…as well as waiting an unseemly amount of time (until finally being forced) to talk to his own handpicked general in command there! He then ignored the advice of his general and refused to send the requested troops, and those he is sending are not coming in a surge, but rather a trickle.
I am amazed that the military is doing as well as they are, with back to back idiots running the show!
It is also a scandalthat there are only 460,000 plus soldiers in our army at a time when we are fighting two wars and deployed around the world in peacekeeping and humanitarian roles, whe, in 1989 at a time when we weren’t fighting anybody, the active force was 786,000. No wonder our soldiers are at the breaking point. And yet, our leaders in Washington waste money on such things as the Department of Education and the Department of Energy, which have contributed zero to improving the state of education in this country or our energy efficiency. Throw them all out.
This article in effect shos that our current way of operating is unsustainable. I tend to agree with Evan (as usual). The military is one of the best and healthiest parts of our society; Congress is one of the worst and sickest, and yet they’re the ones in charge. The retiring Domocratic senator from Indiana (Evan Bayh) is right. As both Evans say, “throw the bums out.” This November it’s time to clean house.
David Handy+
It is an issue across the military. We have fewer (if individualy more capable) units. Somewhat like the old joke from the 60s that eventualy the Air Force would only be able to afford one plane, but it would be capable of defeting the Soviet Air Force by itself.
What we need are more light infantry units (perhaps along the lines of 10th Mountain), units consisting mostly of riflemen using wheeled transport like Strykers and Humvees and trucks. Leave the heavy units like 3rd ID in existence, sometimes you need a heavy force, but we need lots of “poor bloody infantry” of late, and I suspect that will continue. Probably at least two divisions worth.
The Navy needs cheap platforms for “presence” missions. The Littoral Combat Ship has proven to be an expensive joke, what we need is something along the lines of an updated FFG-7 Perry. No, it won’t be much use in a carrier battle group, but two helos, a 76mm gun and a couple 25mm chainguns, and maybe a RAM launcher for self-defence anti-air would cover 90% of what our ships actualy do, for far less cash so we could afford more of them.
Similarly, the USAF is looking into purchasing some turboprop aircraft for low intensity, long duration sorties to provide guided bombs on demand for the guys on the ground. Makes a lot of sense when most of our recent conflicts have seen us with air dominance. you need some F-22s to destroy the other guy’s air force, then lots of cheap bomb trucks to loiter overhead for the infantry. Right now we’re using everything from B-52s to F-16s to essentialy priceless B-2 stealth bombers to fulfill that role.
We, the US, have long been proponents of quality of quantity, quite probably as a reaction to the perception of higher German quality in WW2. And even before that the “American Way of War” has focused on using machines in place of people (which is itself a reflection of American economic history where relative labor shortages encouraged use of machines). But sometimes Quantity has a Quality all its own, and reducing deployment tempo is a big part of that.
#4
No offense, and not to be argumentative, but I disagree. We need armor in Afghanistan and we need it right where the most recent offensive was staged.
This thread might be worth a read: http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/28308
This from that thread:
[blockquote]Canadians advised the US to “bring tanksâ€.
Lt.-Gen. Leslie gives his advice:
PANJWAII DISTRICT, Afghanistan — Three years of fighting in the dust-choked lanes and tangled grape fields of Panjwaii district have taught Canadian soldiers some hard, bloody lessons.
As the U.S. prepares this spring to surge 17,000 fresh troops into Afghanistan, they have two words of advice for their American colleagues: Bring tanks.
————————
But since the landmark battle Operation Medusa in the late summer and early fall of 2006, the Leopards with their 120-millimetre cannon, have become a critical component of the army’s arsenal.
“You don’t need a lot of them,†Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, the chief of land staff, said in a recent interview with The Canadian Press.
Canadians learned early when combat heated up that punching through the thick mud-walled compounds and grape huts, turned into redoubts by Taliban, was almost impossible with light weapons and required the heavy power of tanks.
It is an experience the troops — especially the country’s top soldier — are eager to pass along as American reinforcements arrive.
“Once you’ve got them and once you can see what they can do, it’s very difficult to convince yourself that they’re not absolutely essential,†Leslie said in an interview from Ottawa.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/03/chief-of-land-staff-gen-us-needs-tanks.html
[/blockquote]
You misunderstood. What I meant was, we need more infantry, but not to do so by replacing heavy units with light units. In other words, keep the tanks we have, add more riflemen. I’m a big believer in armor. But a very little Abrams goes a long way. Maybe something like the Marines with their MEUs, one four tank platoon attached to a rifle battalion. But the infantry don’t need to ride in M2 Bradleys or the like in these enviroments.
This also sounds like a good place to use Armored Cavalry units, which are tank-heavy and IIRC trained to work in small detached teams, to support large deployments of infantry.
My point is, we have too few troops, but there isn’t a need or funding to create several heavy armored or mechanized divisions. Perhaps attach an armored company to each brigade, to parcel out as needed? I think we’ve been moving towards using the Brigade as the main deployable unit lately.
Amen to the tanks! The armored firepower of a tank is a far more surgical means of eliminating a threat than artillery or airstrikes, with their associated collateral damage and casualties. It is exasperating how folks tend to see force structure as an either/or matter. A balanced force requires armor on the ground. Anyone remember Somalia? It was Pakistani armor that got our Rangers out of danger. I agree with Andrew though, that there is no substitute for boots on the ground. It’s not sufficient to have the best trained and equipped soldiers, the best planes or the best ships in the world if you don’t have enough of them.
Andrew,
Sorry about my last, but I began my comment and had to stop for another task. In the meantime, you had posted your #6. Armored cavalry is indeed a good answer. I was an Armored Cavalry officer back in the day, and each division had an squadron assigned to it. Troops were task organized with infantry units routinely. As its own combined arms unit, a cavalry troop or platoon would be invalueable in a place like Afghanistan. I also agree that the infantry needs to be on the ground, not in Bradley’s. We’re pretty much on the same sheet of music, I think.
Then I think we are in agreement. Thanks for the response to clarify because I did misunderstand. Pax.
No problem guys. And I’m glad to get feedback from someone with firsthand knowledge, Evan. It’s a topic I take great interest in, but the closest I’ve come to Army experiance is the BSA, which is pretty dang distant!
Air power may indeed win the air war, and they may pound enemy ground units into dust, but insurgent forces are another matter. When you confront insurgents from the air, they run and hide in the nearest cave or house…..and often live to fight another day.
No, you need armor with infantry and artillery backing. In the end, though, it takes the soldier on the ground and on scene to take and keep the place. I agree with General Leslie.